10 comments
:

I don't know about that. If I carry around any prejudices in curating this site, it's my general lack of appreciation for illustration series on mycology (and pomology - fruit - for that matter). I like the occasional plate or watercolour sketch, but I've always been a little disappointed with collections (never say never though). I think fungi and fruit have had a better time in traditional painting than in the book/print arts.

I see your point, but I suppose I have an unaccountable bias in their favor. For some reason I just like looking at pictures of fungi. (I will say I've seen more enchanting illustrations of them, but wasn't keeping track where.)

I chose the adjectives carefully above - 'solid', 'honest' - and refrained from trying to play it as 'excellent, artistically speaking' or variations along those lines. I think they're what they are: competent as a kind of recording of visual data and fairly appealing; but the book as a whole is quite an excellent achievement.

I *also* like pics of fungi; I think there are more than a few here in the archives, but they have always been singularities. I don't know who the Audubon of mycology (or pomology) might be. I'm not sure if that speaks to my ignorance or is support for the idea I'm suggesting: there's just not that many good *collections* of mycological illustrations around. Again: I keep my eyes open..

I think they are beautiful precisely because they are trying so hard to be scientific and honest - the sincerity makes them touching, especially the funghi pieces you've chosen. This is personally why I love the illustrative/descriptive tradition. Thanks!

Whoo hooo! OK submitting archival prints should not be that exciting, but hey I like adding to the collective knowledge. I emailed my two prints of edible fungi to add to collection, to be used how they may. Call me a geek but I like this kinda thing.